Facebook Feed

5 days ago

Yoram Ettinger
2023 Jewish demographic momentum in Israel: bit.ly/40qV0aV ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

President Obama Not Entering a Rose Garden

President Roosevelt faced the Great Depression during his first term and Second World War during his third term.  President Obama will face simultaneously – upon entering the White House – the most severe economic recession since Roosevelt and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as World War Three against Islamic terrorism and a series of additional severe challenges/threats domestically and internationally.

 

Just like previous presidents, Obama would prefer to be preoccupied with the home front, which is burdened by high-level pessimism and uncertainty, exacerbated political polarization and fear of further economic deterioration. However, the international arena will not grant Obama even a single day of grace.  The Clinton presidency documents that a dovish world view does not immunize US presidents against global rivals and enemies.  On February 29, 1993, during Clinton’s first month in office, Bin-Laden terrorized the Twin Towers: Six civilians were murdered, 1,000 were injured and 50,000 evacuated.  On October 3, 1993, the bodies of 18 US servicemen were dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, in spite of Clinton’s commitment to reverse Bush 41st‘s policy and pull out of Somalia, as reiterated during clandestine talks held with terror lord, Aideed.

 

Antagonists and opponents of the US will be quick to test the resolve and decision-making capabilities of the president-elect, who lacks national security and international relations experience. They wish to find out whether his presidency will be an opportunity to advance their strategic goals and whether he is a real – or a paper – tiger. Islamic terrorists will attempt to humiliate the US into a swift Somalia-style evacuation of Iraq, despite Obama’s own evacuation plans, and a similar retreat from Afghanistan. Iran might escalate its subversive activities in the Persian Gulf in general and in Iraq in particular, intensify the arming and incitement of Hizballah and Hamas in Lebanon and in Gaza and hasten the acquisition of nuclear capabilities.  Syria may exploit the inherent instability of Lebanon, in order to reassert itself militarily in its “Western Province,” and test US commitment to Lebanon’s sovereignty. Palestinian terrorism could expand its operations, with the aim of clarifying Obama’s willingness to pressure Israel against “disproportionate response.”  Will North Korea employ the US transition of power, in order to violate – once again – its commitments? Will Putin leverage the Georgia Precedent, in order to reassert Soviet-style Imperialism?  Will China join the “welcoming party,” testing Obama’s adherence to agreements with Taiwan? Will Qadaffi – who was deterred by the fate of Saddam Hussein – revert to terrorism?  Will President Obama demonstrate that he does not blink first?

 

The aggravation of global violence, along with the US geography, natural resources, human resources, national security and economic interests and core American vision/values, clarify why the US constitutes an indispensable super power, why presidential decisions possess domestic and global implications, and why Obama will have to raise simultaneously the flags of national security and socio-economy.

 

Obama will not be received at the White House by a Rose Garden, but rather by a thorny field of economic problems.  He will be inaugurated on January 20, 2009, in the midst of the most severe economic recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s: Manufacturing activity is at a 26 year low, private consumption has taken a serious dive, banking credit is heavily constrained, a collapse of credit companies may be around the corner, the state of Social Security and health insurance is bleak and the wave of bankruptcy is gaining momentum. Obama will have to decide how to spend the $700BN bailout package, and whether such a package – and additional ones constitute water or fuel for the economic fire. How will such packages – which inflate national debt and nationalize a substantial element of the US economy – be financed? Will Obama raise or lower taxes?  Should banking regulation be expanded to other investment institutions? How will the US be freed of oil dependency? How will Obama achieve his socio-economic plans without overly-stretching the already thin economy?

 

Obama will, supposedly, benefit from automatic support by the Democrat-controlled Congress.  However, the Clinton Precedent proves that Separation of Powers is stronger than party loyalty.  In 1992, Clinton was elected alongside a substantial Democratic majority in both Chambers.  However, his determination to ram his (Hillary’s) health reform plan down the throat of Congress backfired, and led to the 1994 Republican Revolution.

 

President Obama’s victory may be the most impressive since 1964, but he is facing challenges and threats, which are the most awesome since the 1930s.

 




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

Secretary Pompeo 2019 vs. President Obama 2009

The January 10, 2019 Cairo, Egypt speech by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – which was cleared by the White House – was a course-setting presentation of the US role in the Middle East.

Pompeo’s ideological and operational speech was aimed at bolstering the US’ posture of deterrence and reassuring pro-US Arab regimes. It was diametrically opposed to President Obama’s vision of the Middle East, which was presented in Cairo, Egypt on June 4, 2009.

In 2009, in Cairo, President Obama introduced his own vision of rejuvenated US relations with Islam and Muslims, highlighting the following guidelines:

“Islam has always been a part of America’s story…. Since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights….

“Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace….

“America and Islam are not exclusive… they overlap and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings…. The interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart…. Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality….

“More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a cold war in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.  Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam….

“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance….”

In 2019, in Cairo, Secretary of State, Pompeo, introduced his own assessments of Middle East reality and bluntly recommended policy guidelines:

“When America retreats, chaos often follows. When we neglect our friends, resentment builds. When we partner with enemies, they advance….

“America has confronted the ugly reality of radical Islamism…. America will not retreat until the terror fight is over…. We remain committed to the complete dismantling of ISIS…. defeating Islamist extremism wherever we find it…. We grossly underestimated the tenacity and viciousness of radical Islamism, a debauched strain of the faith that seeks to upend every other form of worship or governance.…

“We must confront the Ayatollahs, not coddle them…. We withdrew from the failed [2015] nuclear deal…. re-imposing sanctions that should have never been lifted…. The nations of the Middle East will never enjoy security…if Iran’s revolutionary regime persists on its current course…. America’s economic sanctions against [Iran]… will keep getting tougher until Iran starts behaving like a normal country…. Iran may think it owns Lebanon; Iran is wrong….

“[The Middle East] witnessed convulsions [not an ‘Arab Spring’] from Tunis to Tehran as old systems crumbled and new ones struggled to emerge…. In falsely seeing ourselves as a force for what ails the Middle East, we were timid in asserting ourselves when the times – and our partners – demanded it….

“Our reluctance to wield our influence kept us silent as the people of Iran rose up [in 2009] against the mullahs in Tehran in the Green Revolution…. Emboldened, the regime spread its cancerous influence to Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon….

“American’s penchant for wishful thinking led us to look the other way as Hezbollah, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian regime, accumulated a massive arsenal of approximately 130,000 rockets and missiles… aimed squarely at our ally, Israel…. The US fully supports Israel’s right to defend itself against the Iranian regimes’ aggressive adventurism.  We will continue to ensure that Israel has the military capacity to do so decisively…. We strongly support Israel’s efforts to stop Tehran from turning Syria into the next Lebanon…. President Trump campaigned on the promise to recognize Jerusalem – the seat of Israel’s government – as the national capital.  In May, we moved our embassy there….”

Reviewing both Cairo speeches, one may pose the following questions:

*Is the US war on the 14 century-old relentless Islamic terrorism advanced/undermined by the assumption that Middle East and Western regimes and peoples share similar goals and values?

*Is the long term US counter-terrorism effort well-served by soothing – or militarily combatting – terrorists?

*Is the US better off combatting Islamic terrorists in Middle East trenches or trenches in the US?

*While the US military deterrence in the Middle East would be enhanced by a coalition of pro-US Arab regimes, could it be replaced by such a coalition of regimes, which are inherently tenuous as are their policies and alliances?

*Is the US better off reacting to – or preempting – Islamic terrorism?

*Is the long-term US national security, in general, and counter-terrorism, in particular, well-served by Israel’s operational, intelligence and technological experience and capabilities, in addition to Israel’s reliability as an ally of the US?




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb